I just realized that walnuts look like lungs to me. I absolutely had to blog this.
Tonight is my first cab ride ever!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Just saying
In the campus dining hall, there are some ice cream flavors I will avoid until the day I die. I avoid them because I do not know what the hell they are supposed to be.
For example, there is a deep pink flavor with lots of tiny peanut-colored balls in it. I can only imagine that this is cherry-peanutpaste ice cream, and you just can't expect people to eat that crap.
For example, there is a deep pink flavor with lots of tiny peanut-colored balls in it. I can only imagine that this is cherry-peanutpaste ice cream, and you just can't expect people to eat that crap.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
O, solo Clio
The 2007 Clio Awards were announced last Friday and Saturday in Miami Beach. I'm the moron who once told a film professor that I prefer commercials to movies, so of course I will be happily poring over the winners for days to come.
Right now, though, I'm stuck on the grand Clio winner for print advertising. It's a campaign for 42 Below vodka that tells stories of drunken debauchery with clever pictography.
The campaign is funny for two primary reasons, the first being the quality of the pictograms. They have a sanitized retro style, which would seem flat and "done" if the admakers hadn't rejected slick uniformity in favor of slight variations in detail from image to image. A pictogram of a train rendered in near-photographic detail shares a page with a highly simplified tissue box, reinforcing the illusion that these illustrations were pulled from diverse source materials. (The introduction of "newer" graphics like a television manages this as well.)
Once you reinforce the sense of the pictograms' authenticity, you've built a sound foundation for the most important function of their style: to create humor by contrasting images from sexually repressed and sanitized media with raunchy content. This has been done so many times in the past decade that it's almost impossible to execute successfully (we've learned to read "retro" portraits on merchandise not only as fakes, but as boring and trendy), and you can't expect this device to carry your whole campaign, but these ads create just enough believability to milk the gag a bit. It's important mostly because poorly executed retro pictograms would have been passe and stupid. It was a gamble on the admakers' part, and they won.
The campaign's second big strength is the narrative's lack of immediate accessibility. I can't quite believe I'm saying that, but there it is. Confusing advertisements are usually suited only to "new" names that want to generate brand recognition through weirdness factor (think early Quizno's commercials), but the 42 Below stories are a different kind of confusing. They force your passive/receiving mind to be a bit active and engage in completing the story. You have to interpret symbols (Did a kitten just show up? Oh wait—) and fill in the relationships between different pictures. I'm not saying it's difficult to do— most people will figure out that a woman's face + panties = undressing in less than a second— but that fraction of a second where you aren't being spoonfed the narrative is important. You're visualizing the parts of the story they didn't give you. Even though it's relatively light work for your brain, the admakers have gotten you to devote extra time and extra attention to their page. That's important.
Of course, there are more traditional factors working in favor of the campaign— visually, it's simple and very distinctive. The product logo is repeated several times throughout the page, and it's usually the only writing in the story (which means that readers easily accept it and move on— not quite subliminal, but not too far off— and "non-readers" turning the page still catch the product name). The stories themselves are sort of funny, in a lame sitcom way. But what really drives the whole thing home is the sense that there's something to "get," and you get it. The pictograms give it a punchline.
(By the way, those stupid Skittles ads pulled in a gold Clio. Eyeroll.)
Right now, though, I'm stuck on the grand Clio winner for print advertising. It's a campaign for 42 Below vodka that tells stories of drunken debauchery with clever pictography.
The campaign is funny for two primary reasons, the first being the quality of the pictograms. They have a sanitized retro style, which would seem flat and "done" if the admakers hadn't rejected slick uniformity in favor of slight variations in detail from image to image. A pictogram of a train rendered in near-photographic detail shares a page with a highly simplified tissue box, reinforcing the illusion that these illustrations were pulled from diverse source materials. (The introduction of "newer" graphics like a television manages this as well.)
Once you reinforce the sense of the pictograms' authenticity, you've built a sound foundation for the most important function of their style: to create humor by contrasting images from sexually repressed and sanitized media with raunchy content. This has been done so many times in the past decade that it's almost impossible to execute successfully (we've learned to read "retro" portraits on merchandise not only as fakes, but as boring and trendy), and you can't expect this device to carry your whole campaign, but these ads create just enough believability to milk the gag a bit. It's important mostly because poorly executed retro pictograms would have been passe and stupid. It was a gamble on the admakers' part, and they won.
The campaign's second big strength is the narrative's lack of immediate accessibility. I can't quite believe I'm saying that, but there it is. Confusing advertisements are usually suited only to "new" names that want to generate brand recognition through weirdness factor (think early Quizno's commercials), but the 42 Below stories are a different kind of confusing. They force your passive/receiving mind to be a bit active and engage in completing the story. You have to interpret symbols (Did a kitten just show up? Oh wait—) and fill in the relationships between different pictures. I'm not saying it's difficult to do— most people will figure out that a woman's face + panties = undressing in less than a second— but that fraction of a second where you aren't being spoonfed the narrative is important. You're visualizing the parts of the story they didn't give you. Even though it's relatively light work for your brain, the admakers have gotten you to devote extra time and extra attention to their page. That's important.
Of course, there are more traditional factors working in favor of the campaign— visually, it's simple and very distinctive. The product logo is repeated several times throughout the page, and it's usually the only writing in the story (which means that readers easily accept it and move on— not quite subliminal, but not too far off— and "non-readers" turning the page still catch the product name). The stories themselves are sort of funny, in a lame sitcom way. But what really drives the whole thing home is the sense that there's something to "get," and you get it. The pictograms give it a punchline.
(By the way, those stupid Skittles ads pulled in a gold Clio. Eyeroll.)
Monday, May 14, 2007
Weekly Win/Lose, May 6-12
Win
- Nice guy at The Spot: Poking through the sushi selection at 2 a.m., I sent a tray of California rolls tumbling to the floor, where they made a real mess. He helped me stuff everything back into the tray, which he then presented to the clerk with a story about how "we" accidentally spilled it.
- Karen: Stopped in Bmore to hang out on her way home from JMU. Tolerated my unbearably slow sandwich-eating pace.
- MTA Driver, 9:20 p.m. in Arbutus on Tuesday: I know you probably weren't heading to UMBC, and I know you probably should have charged me. Thank you.
Lose
- Me: I cancelled on Dave. I suck.
- Thunderstorms: You were two days late. Unacceptable.
- My upstairs neighbors: Seriously, guys, I'm glad you have a healthy sexual relationship, I just don't want to hear the proof.
- UMBC Transit: THAT SECOND BUS NEVER CAME, MISTER.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Temp'rary notice
I forgot I was working on this, so it's going to look like I mashed some buttons for a while. Although I hid almost all of the old entries, I did keep the poetry, Q&A, and Google Image Searches, which means I have to resize some of those things to make them fit the new post width.
I'm also probably going to change the colors and title background, once I've found something that works better. Right now you are looking at part of a photograph by Stu, and while I love the photograph, the colors I've picked to go with it are totally gross. Honestly, I miss the old layout, but Blogger forced me to update my template and I haven't been able to figure out how to get the old one back yet.
So, that's where we are.
Oh, and my body thinks it's getting mono AGAIN, which is impossible, although I appreciate its ambition.
I'm also probably going to change the colors and title background, once I've found something that works better. Right now you are looking at part of a photograph by Stu, and while I love the photograph, the colors I've picked to go with it are totally gross. Honestly, I miss the old layout, but Blogger forced me to update my template and I haven't been able to figure out how to get the old one back yet.
So, that's where we are.
Oh, and my body thinks it's getting mono AGAIN, which is impossible, although I appreciate its ambition.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Blech
niltse: i think i'm going to bring back my blog and make it really dirty and gross looking.
brian775: oh, sweet
niltse: it'll be like, "oh god, this looks like it's been sitting on a rainy city street for four days"
brian775: I can't wait
So this is it. Looks like I need to nudge some things right and left.
I'll probably give in and make it all bright and pretty again, once I've worked out the other issues.
brian775: oh, sweet
niltse: it'll be like, "oh god, this looks like it's been sitting on a rainy city street for four days"
brian775: I can't wait
So this is it. Looks like I need to nudge some things right and left.
I'll probably give in and make it all bright and pretty again, once I've worked out the other issues.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Title of the Post
Hi, pals and superpals. I'm thinking about bringing the blog back.
Give me a few days to decide whether I have anything to say.
Give me a few days to decide whether I have anything to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
